Matthew omitted Jesus' hearing before Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-23). Quite possibly Annas lived in one wing of the same building in which the Sanhedrin met.1028
26:57 Josephus wrote that the building in which the Sanhedrin normally met stood close to the western wall of the temple enclosure.1029The exact location is presently unknown. However this meeting of the Sanhedrin took place in Caiaphas' house or palace (Luke 22:54).1030While Annas examined Jesus, the Sanhedrin members assembled.
As mentioned earlier, Caiaphas was the official high priest then. He would have presided over the Sanhedrin. He was probably a Sadducee. The Sadducees held the power in Israel then. The scribes were the official teachers of the law, and the elders were the lay representatives of the people. The chief priests, mainly Sadducees, were also present (v. 59). These were the three groups that composed Israel's chief ruling body.
26:58 All the disciples had fled and left Jesus (v. 56; cf. Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54; John 18:15-18), but Peter followed at a safe distance as Jesus' guards led Him across the Kidron Valley, into Jerusalem, and into the high priest's house. This house contained an open courtyard in the middle, which was typical. Peter positioned himself inconspicuously, he thought, near a fire in the courtyard to observe what would happen (cf. John 18:15-16).
26:59-63a The phrase "whole Council"or "whole Sanhedrin"need not mean that all 70 members plus the high priest were present since only 23 constituted a quorum (cf. Luke 23:50-51).1031The chief priests were also the legal experts, so they evidently took the lead in conducting the trial. Matthew wrote that they tried to get false testimony against Jesus. This does not mean they looked for liars, but they looked for witnesses who would document their conviction that Jesus was a law breaker. To do that the witnesses would have to give false testimony.
The Mosaic Law required at least two witnesses in cases of capital offense. The lawyers had to interview several people before they finally found two that would agree on a charge against Jesus. This was another way that Matthew stressed Jesus' innocence. Interpreting with wooden literalism one might take Jesus' words as a threat to desecrate the temple, but Jesus had spoken metaphorically (John 2:19-21). He had meant that He was the true temple, the place where people met God and where God met them. Most ancient Near Eastern people regarded the desecration of a temple as a capital offense, and the Jews shared this viewpoint (cf. Jer. 26:1-19).
Even though the religious leaders oppressed and afflicted Jesus, He did not open His mouth. He was silent, like a lamb going to the slaughter and as a sheep before its shearers (v. 63a; cf. Isa. 53:7).
26:63b Frustrated by Jesus' silence the high priest tried to cut through to the basic issue. Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah or not?
"In terms of the plot of Matthew's story, this unexpected query raises the problem as to the source from which the high priest has even gotten the idea to question Jesus about being the Son of God. This source is Jesus himself and his narration of the parable of the wicked husbandmen [21:33-45]. As the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, the high priest has knowledge of the claim to divine sonship which Jesus made in telling his parable to the chief priests and the elders. At the trial, therefore, the high priest seizes on Jesus' own claim . . . and hurls it back at Jesus as a weapon by which to destroy him."1032
Caiaphas demanded that Jesus answer under oath by the living God. "Son of God"was an equivalent title with "Messiah"(cf. 2:15; 3:17; 11:27; 16:13-20). If Jesus refused to answer, He would break an oath imposed on Him legally by the high priest. If He denied the charge, He would have had no further influence even though the Sanhedrin might acquit Him. If He affirmed the charge, He would appear to be an impostor given the presuppositions of the Sanhedrin. From their viewpoint, the Messiah would not allow others to imprison Him and put His life in jeopardy.
26:64 Jesus gave the same answer to Caiaphas that He had given to Judas (v. 25). It was "affirmative in content, and reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation."1033Caiaphas took it as a yes (v. 65). Jesus then proceeded to expand or qualify His response because the religious leaders' concept of Messiah was inadequate. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but not the Messiah Caiaphas and his cronies had in mind.
Jesus alluded to Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 to show that He was not a political Messiah in the popular mold. He was a Messiah who would receive a kingdom from the Ancient of Days and return to reign in great power and honor. This was one of Jesus' clearest claims of messiahship (cf. 16:27; 23:39; 24:30-31; 26:29). It constituted both a revelation and a threat to Israel's leaders. From now on, Jesus claimed, His hearers would not see Him as He stood before them then. In the future they would see Him as the Messiah and their Judge.
26:65-66 Rending one's garments expressed indignation or grief (cf. 2 Kings 18:37). It became a traditional response to blasphemy (cf. Acts 14:14).1034However it was illegal for the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. 21:10). The punishment for blasphemy in the Mosaic Law was death (Lev. 24:16).
26:67-68 Jesus' messianic claims did not impress or intimidate His accursers. They proceeded to humiliate Him for what they considered to be His false pretensions. Jesus' passive acceptance of these indignities only reinforced their assumption and encouraged them to be even more hostile (cf. Isa. 53:7). Mark and Luke recorded that they blindfolded Jesus (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64). Perhaps Matthew's omission of this fact suggests that the leaders and or their servants beat Jesus so badly that He could not see who was doing the beating even if they had not blindfolded Him (cf. Isa. 52:14). If He was the Messiah, He should have been able to tell (prophesy in the sense of revealing something unknown) who hit Him.
